Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RichH said:

We had a leaflet dropped through our door in relation to this a few weeks ago. Assume the profits from Gala helped make this happen.

Posted (edited)

I really hope this doesn't lead to parts of the park being permanently waterlogged, as it did when they undertook similar work in Dulwich park. This quote (below), doesn't fill me with confidence....

Quote

capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly

The cynic in me wonders whether this is a a case of an under investment in our infrastructure / drainage and sewage systems by private companies, externalising the costs of mitigation to councils (and to the detriment of our open spaces).

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 2

Hi, I am one of the Peckham Rye Ward Councillors. To confirm that these are flood alleviation works. These are to bring improvements to the park and common and to reduce the risk of flooding by ground water to nearby residential properties. More information is included in the link.

Information Boards.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Southwark did some good work maybe ten years ago improving the drainage on the football pitch to the left as you look towards central London.  Both the Rye and Dulwich Park would be standing water for several weeks around the football training areas in late winter, geology and precipitation rather than any incompetence. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Not suggesting any incompetence. But reading the info, it suggests that the bunds are being put in place to hold water in the park:

“capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly”.

…so I’m interested whether this will lead to the park being more regularly waterlogged.

I would have thought that the responsibility for drainage / flood avoidance is a joint one with the private companies who run this infrastructure, alongside the local authority, but may be wrong. Again it would be interesting to know the answer.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • 1 month later...
On 19/07/2024 at 09:09, tercio said:

My understanding is that they are capturing the water under the surface and then releasing it. The commons should be less wet on the surface as a result. 

They are doing that and perhaps it will have that result, but the intended result is actually to reduce flooding in surrounding streets not on the common itself.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • As a result of the Horizon scandal it now seems very clear that the Post Office management are highly disingenuous and not be trusted!  There needs to be a campaign launched to challenge the threatened closure, unless the Post Office can demonstrate beyond doubt that the branch is loss making - and even then it could argued that better management could address this. I hope the local media take this up and our MP  and a few demonstrations outside wouldn’t do any harm. Bad publicity can be very effective!         
    • Unlikely. It would take a little more than a bit of Milton to alter the pH of eighty-odd thousand gallons of water.
    • It actually feels as though what I said is being analytically analysed word by word, almost letter by better. I really don't believe that I should have to explain myself to the level it seems someone wants me to. Clearly someones been watching way too much Big Brother. 
    • Sadly they don't do the full range of post office services
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...